From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve
I thnk your missing the point.
Most courts would have agreed that the person was given
the opportunity to demonstrate that he possessed the
shotgun(s) legally (the request to examine the certificate).
When he refused then the police were under no requirement
to check that a certificate was in force at that stage and
would have a reasonable suspicion that he therefore
possessed the shotgun(s) illegally. Thus they arrested him.
When the certificate was eventually produced after the
arrest (or the police checked their records). Then it was
not reasonable to hold him under arrest, though many police
forces would have considered him to be obstructing a police
officer and charged him with that as well (thats also an
offence you can be arrested for).
The original arrest would appear to be perfectly legal so
I think his solicitor/barrister managed to work the oracle
in getting him compensation, or did these police officers
already know that he possessed a valid certificate? That
would put an entirely different spin on the situation.
Also the original penalty would have increased dramatically
since the 1968 Act came into force. Somewhere in the
schedule is probably the power of arrest for a person
believed to possess a weapon illegally.
Regards
Jerry
--
I think the point is that he was arrested and charged with
a criminal offence, however suing them would have been in
civil court and strange things can happen especially if
there is a jury.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
